Yes get your pets fix. Till they make doggie birth control dogs that are not in good breeding programs should be fixed.

I think there are some people that should get fixed too.

Fact intacted female dogs are high risk of mammary cancer.

 

We have turned to removing the reproductive organs from our dogs to compensate for lazy irresponsible owners. Spaying and neutering our dogs is so indoctrinated into our society that there are people who actually freak out at the sight of testicles on a male. They want to know why the dog isn't "fixed" as though reproductive organs are a disease. Very sad.

 

We have turned to removing the reproductive organs from our dogs to compensate for lazy irresponsible owners. Spaying and neutering our dogs is so indoctrinated into our society that there are people who actually freak out at the sight of testicles on a male. They want to know why the dog isn't "fixed" as though reproductive organs are a disease. Very sad.

This ^ should be repeated over and over and over! ^^^^^

It is a personal choice and as long as they are owned responsibly, there shouldn't be a problem. I will fight to keep it a choice and not a "have-to"!!!

 

*sigh* then all animals should be altered, because the irresponsible outweigh the responsible owners at least 40-1. There's oopsie litters all the time, especially in our area, or maybe I notice it way more due to being in rescue. Oh, no, all one has to do is look at Craiglist to see all the oopsie litters.

I'm not sure dogs can behaviorally compared to livestock type animals, especially not animals in which males go into "rut".

Well, they were being compared to farm animals in another thread (about body shape/size), specifically steers vs. bulls, and even horses. If testosterone, or lack thereof, can affect body size, then certainly it can affect certain other developments. And, it is a proven fact that the highest bite incidents (in dogs) occur with intact adult males.

 

*sigh* then all animals should be altered, because the irresponsible outweigh the responsible owners at least 40-1. There's oopsie litters all the time, especially in our area, or maybe I notice it way more due to being in rescue. Oh, no, all one has to do is look at Craiglist to see all the oopsie litters.

So you feel your pets should be altered because of irresponsible owners? That doesn't really make sense unless you think you are an irresponsible owner. Do you feel we should work towards a "No Birth Nation" in regards to dogs?

Well, they were being compared to farm animals in another thread (about body shape/size), specifically steers vs. bulls, and even horses. If testosterone, or lack thereof, can affect body size, then certainly it can affect certain other developments. And, it is a proven fact that the highest bite incidents (in dogs) occur with intact adult males.

Having owned intact animals that went into "rut" (ferrets) and intact dogs for many, many years I can tell you they are much different. Although, to be honest I always found the claims of aggression with intact male ferrets to also be over-exaggerated. Yes, the males are more likely to fight with each other when in rut but I never had any aggression issues towards me with the intact boys in rut or not. Haven't had hormone related aggression in my boy dogs either.

Many serious bite incidents happen because the owners aren't responsible enough to prevent them. People keeping their dog chained to a doghouse 24/7 are unlikely to pay for neutering but IMO it doesn't prove much at all about intact males and aggression. Some of the most seriously aggressive dogs I have known have been neutered males. And the majority of dogs I've been bitten by have been altered but as is common with dog bites, they were minor and unreported so don't factor into the statistics.

x100 not true!
Just because they don't go straight from the breeder to the shelter (or rescue) doesn't mean they didn't come from one. Just how did the purebreds get to be in shelters??
And...at any given time, 60+% of the pets in shelters are indeed purebred..

Where are you getting this number from?

Pet adoption: Want a dog or cat? Adopt a pet on Petfinder

<--- do the research. When you search for any breed, it gives you an actual number of the dogs of that breed that are in shelters at this moment.
That's not including the shelters or rescues who do not advertise on Petfinder.

Well it gives you an actual number of dogs ID'd as that breed which are in shelters at this moment. LOTS of those dogs are not purebred or are completely misID'd.

 

I got the number from 10yrs. work in animal shelters, doing walk throughs, observing and also in our own rescue...plus, if my own observations aren't good enough, you can research it yourself, the numbers are out there.

Many serious bite incidents happen because the owners aren't responsible enough to prevent them.

That's pretty much my point.

Curious where you guys think all the animals in shelters are coming from, if everyone is so responsible? Legitimate question. Where do they all come from? Puppies and kittens?
Purebreds, mutts, mixes, whatever.

PS. It is much fewer percentage of purebreds - reported - but again, it doesn't matter if it's a purebred so much or a mix of two purebred dogs, my question is still the same, where are they all coming from?

 

Curious where you guys think all the animals in shelters are coming from, if everyone is so responsible? Legitimate question. Where do they all come from? Puppies and kittens?
Purebreds, mutts, mixes, whatever.

They come from irresponsible people. Many responsible people spay and neuter their pets. Many other responsible people are able to have intact pets and keep them from breeding. Irresponsible people don't speuter their pets and don't keep them from breeding.

I have respect for people who spay/neuter. They're responsible enough to realize that they don't want to deal with an intact dog, so they make the appointment and alter their dog. Nothing wrong with that. I don't have respect for people who say I'm irresponsible because my dog isn't neutered.

 

The numbers are too overwhelming to insist that "most owners are responsible". In fact, a browse over our local CL just now saw many pit bulls, dozens of mixes and even a purebred litter of St. Bernards.
Wonder where they'll wind up?

 

The numbers are too overwhelming to insist that "most owners are responsible". ?

I don't think most owners are responsible. I never said they were. I said many are. Honestly, many people aren't responsible enough to have a hamster. If they are going to own a dog, the dog should be altered. However, even if we can agree that many pet owners are irresponsible, that doesn't give people the right to say the I, or Lisa, or Agile, or Freckles are irresponsible for having an intact pet.

If we concede that most irresponsible owners own intact dogs, it does not logically follow that every owner of an intact dog is irresponsible.

 

No...you're right, but I also know many so-called (or perhaps just self-proclaimed!) responsible people wind up with their share of oopsies...and just sell the pups at reduced fees.
Face it. All we know from the internet is what people say they are, or aren't.

 

Well, fortunately for all of us, people on the internet don't have the right to tell other people on the internet what to do. :thumbup:

 

Telling people what to do (or not telling them) doesn't have anything to do with those who claim one thing and are actually another entirely

 

I would think most people on this thread are what they say they are. RESPONSIBLE.

I agree with BlackGSD. While Judge is slightly leash reactive to other dogs, he really doesn't have any problems or behavioral issues that one would associate with his testicles. I respect whatever someone chooses to do with their dog speutering wise as long as the person is responsible, and even if they're not, I can only educate them as much as they'll let me and it's still their choice.

I think using a dog's testicles or uterus as an exuse as to their behavior is silly and a very uneducated way of looking at things.

A dog in a trial has to trial potentially with a bitch in season well within their smelling range, even if the in heat bitch goes last to the field, the dogs can still smell her, their training must be better than their natural instincts if you want to place.

IMHO- Training is KEY and MANY people don't know how to train a dog. I'm not saying that the majority is responsible, cause they're not but those of us here, I'd like to think are what they say they are! I've had Judge 4 years and never had an accidental breeding so I know it can be done.

 

i didnt read the other responses. This is just my feelings on the subject.

All of my cats, male or female, get fixed. Females in heat are annoying and usually stay in heat or have a week off before starting again and i just dont have the patience to deal with a yowling "wheres the guys!" female. Males, i've never had one that didnt start spraying after maturity so the cats are fixed.

Dogs, females are fixed because i dont have the desire to deal with their periods or potential smell that comes with the heat cycle. And i have no desire to have a litter of puppies in the house either so the girls get spayed after a certain point unless they're rescued. My males, i'd prefer remain intact just because thats my personal preference. None of my dogs are ever out of my line of vision or in a position to become doggie parents. Riley is fixed because he was adopted. otherwise he would probably still be intact.

 

I have a female GSD who is still very young. Currently, I am at the point where I am still weighing the options and doing research because I want to do what is best for her. The only thing I know for certain is that I will not consider spaying her until she is at least three years old. I do believe that there is some benefit in leaving all of the hormones intact until the dog has reached maturity.

 

My own personal experience with both intact and neutered animals is that I prefer both the physical condition, appearance and temperament of a fully mature intact animal. I believe, after much reading, that removing the gonads is to the long term detriment of the health of the animal and think more and more research studies are bearing that out.

[edit-I am more convinced about keeping a male intact past the age of full maturity than a female - probably won't really study it too much until I get my next female.--I did notice the dog agression come into my own female after she was spayed at 1 year but there could be many other causitive factors]

I do think neutering, particularly at a young age, turns the final dog into a different animal than an intact dog. When I look back, the only male dogs I had temperament issues with were neutered at a young age. My own intact male has had to actually WORK around a female in heat. Most working dogs learn that work trumps reproduction and can focus in this way. Obviously I would not trust the two of them unsupervised!

Having acquired my first dog in 1965 at the age of 10, I have never, nada, not once been responsible for an "oops" pregnancy or any pregnancy for that matter (except for my own )

I think the context of responsible ownership is there are plenty of educated folks on the board who take their responsibility concerning intact animals very seriously , have intact animals, and probably have experiences similar to my own. Education is the answer here.

People need to be allowed to make their own decisions ....... these discussions scare me because they often lead to unenforceable legislation. Otherwise I could care less whether or not someone wanted to neuter THEIR dog.

 

I'd guess it depends on your area. Here looks like most of the dogs come directly from owners who were moving, couldn't keep them anymore, or just wouldn't keep them anymore rather than directly from breeders. My childhood Poodle, which we had bought from my grandmother who used to breed Poodles, was put in the shelter because we had to move to an apartment that didn't allow dogs.
When I volunteered there (for several months) I saw litters of puppies at the shelter as well, but they weren't the majority.

I would say that a puppy from a responsible breeder rarely ends up in the shelter because of return policies.

 

Ah, okay.

 

I think most of the general public should spay/neuter their pets. But then I am torn in some ways in regards to freedoms and political matters that can't be got into on the board.

 

I got to thinking about this thread last night and it made me wonder.
So some person, new to GSDs, maybe even it is the 1st dog they owned, comes on here, asking what age they ought to alter their pet.
A few of you are firm believers in waiting as long as possible to alter.
So you advise him/her to wait, of course you need to wait!

But you don't even take into account...because you know nothing about this person...what kind of yard set up they have, if they understand how strong the urge to breed can be (even through a fence, if the dogs can't get under or over), if they are responsible enough to have intact animals, etc.

What do you consider "responsible enough"? Because I feel to recommend everyone wait, is doing a disservice to animals. The people seeking advice on a forum may be more responsible or caring, or whatever, than other owners. But when even "mostly responsible" breeders or merely keepers of intact animals can have an "oops" litter, where does that leave people who really have no intention of breeding animals, but would not spay-abort should their bitch accidentally be bred while waiting for that magic number to arrive where you say it's "safe" to go ahead and spay? And what about their boy dogs who routinely escape the yard? In the thread about the dogs being shot in the woods, many people admitted their dogs often wandered loose, or even escaped and were gone for hours. When you have an intact boy, you may never know how many puppies he's helped create if he's off your property for an hour or two.

And, someone asked why I alter my pets? Because they are first and foremost pets, and I do not wish to live through another heat, knowing that my girls could get pyo, knowing that each heat increases their chance of breast cancer, knowing that even a female spayed late in life can get incontinence (spaying young isn't a guarantee she will no more than spaying late is a guarantee she won't), and just like we vaccinate, the benefits outweigh the risks, IMO and in our living situation.

Just as everyone has to decide for themselves (usually with the assistance of their vet who does like their clients to live long, happy lives), people on here shouldn't be making others to feel like idiots or irresponsible when they make the decision to neuter or spay prior to a year of age.

 

Because I feel to recommend everyone wait, is doing a disservice to animals.

I agree. To recommend waiting to the general pet-owning public pretty much guarantees more accidental litters. You have to assume that the general pet-owning public is NOT knowledgable, experienced, or responsible enough to manage an intact pet--I know this sounds elitist, but I feel qualified to make this statement because I have seen it firsthand, over and over again.

If there weren't so many homeless pets, this wouldn't be an issue. But this effects everyone. Who pays to warehouse, feed, and care for all these homeless animals? Who pays for Animal Control to pick up strays? The taxpayers. Even people who don't care about homeless pets ought to know this.

In a perfect world, spay/neuter would be a personal choice and a non-issue. And in fact it still is a personal choice, not a legislated one. For it to stay that way, I think it's a good idea to encourage the average pet owner to spay/neuter before an accidental litter has a chance to occur.

For those who are experienced, knowledgable, and responsible enough to manage an intact animal, more power to them--I wish all pet owners would be this way.

 

I don't know, maybe it's just my perspective, but from reading this thread it seems to me most people are saying, "I personally choose to wait or not neuter at all, but it's a personal decision to be made with your vet and breeder."

I don't think anyone has said, "You must wait to neuter or else you're a bad dog owner." I don't feel like people on this thread are being made to feel like they're bad dog owners for neutering prior to one year. In fact I feel like people who choose to wait are being made to feel like they are irresponsible and don't care about homeless shelter pets. Maybe it's all in perspective.

My friend and neighbor recently got a lab puppy. She's got the Banfield plan and is going to neuter him at 4 months old. I wholeheartedly endorsed this and am loaning her my lampshade collar for his surgery. For her and her dog neutering young was the right choice. For me and my dog it was not.

 

Emoore, if you go back and read through other threads, people are routinely told to wait as long as possible, or at least 2yrs. before altering. Usually in their introduction, if not a post or two later when they genuinely want to know. I can't go find them (or don't feel like it right now LOL) but I can remember even a few people who've told newbies their vets don't know anything and just want to make money which is why the vet would alter at 4-6mos. Again, maybe it's not exactly those words but it's really close.

 

I just wish everyone propagating puppies onto the face of the earth had the "pleasure" of euthanize a litter because nobody will adopt them. Right now on our CL, I see a litter of "pit/rottie/wolf/malamute" puppies. They are being given away at 7 weeks of age. Guess where they'll be in 6mos?

 

Shelters which are still routinely euthanizing healthy, adoptable puppies probably need to change their approach a bit. There are areas of the country that have next to no young, adoptable dogs in their shelters and plenty of people wanting them

So no, not really puppies, but intentionally bred, purebred dogs do end up in shelters with staggering regularity. They don't generally come directly from breeders; there's a stopover of anywhere from 2 months to a year in a private home.

I don't think the dogs who end up in shelters are a huge percentage of the population of dogs in our country. Certain breeds do more commonly end up in shelters and the number of those breeds in shelters/rescues seems high. However, it's still very small percentage of the breed's entire population. Why do you see so many APBTs and GSDs coming into shelters or rescues? Because those are some of the most common purebred dogs in the US. So it would stand to reason you'll see more of them in shelters but you're also more likely to see them in obedience classes, at petstores, out for a walk, at dog parks, etc. There's just plain more of them to see - no matter where you look! The purebreds found in shelters are overwhelmingly the most popular breeds, no matter where you are. I wouldn't say "purebreds end up in shelters with staggering regularity" when the fact is, dogs of most of the hundreds of established breeds rarely end up in shelters.

 

To me, it's like telling a newbie to treat (for instance) worms without even seeing a vet, yes it can be done, but should it? Probably not.

And you're right, free - BLS has occurred because people were irresponsible. Mandatory spay/neuter is a knee-jerk reaction to the sheer amount of pets being put to sleep yearly because people are, apparently, irresponsible, and shelters are sick to death of seeing it and having to do it. They'd love to be out of a job!

As for rescue, I keep saying, "we'll not get any more dogs until..." and then we do, because the numbers are just staggering.
When faced with a puppy who is literally starving to death and freezing (night time temp was 18 that night) because her body scale is a ONE...it's really hard to turn our backs.

 

There are always 2 sides to the issue. I don't think anyone here is saying that "EVERYONE" should keep their dogs intact. Maybe I'm reading it differently, to me they are saying that it is a personal decision.

I recommend speutering to MOST people I meet in public because they don't appear to be very responsible or educated nor do they want to be. Just because I choose to keep intact animals doesn't mean that I don't push speutering.

 

Personally, I don't think anyone should spay or neuter unless there is a medical condition endangering the life of the pet. I think everyone who owns a dog should be more responsible and spay/neuter is almost touted as a free pass for being irresponsible. People should be more responsible with their pets. They should not allow them to breed indiscriminately. Dog's get hit by cars too. We could do surgery on them removing their legs. Then people would not have to keep them contained, and they wouldn't get run over by cars. If we remove their teeth, they will not be able to bark. If we remove their voice box, they will not be able to bark. Why bother with training or containing when there is a surgery that can take care of it?

People should be more responsible instead of mutilating their pets. I think it is pretty sad that we feel that human beings do not have the ability to be more responsible and therefore everyone should perform surgery on their dogs to prevent pregnancy or any contribution to pregnancy.

 

People should be more responsible instead of mutilating their pets. I think it is pretty sad that we feel that human beings do not have the ability to be more responsible and therefore everyone should perform surgery on their dogs to prevent pregnancy or any contribution to pregnancy.

The word "mutilating" is a bit overdramatic, don't you think?

I am spayed. I chose it. I do not want to breed and I do not need another organ to sit there doing nothing but giving me pain and possible cancer. Am I "mutilated"? Am I "irresponsible"?

You can never expect the public at large to be responsible with their pets--that's like expecting people to never break the law or countries never to go to war with each other. We have police and military force for that reason; human nature dictates that we cannot trust our fellow human beings TOO much. By the same token, it's better to ensure unwanted litters aren't born, through (a relatively safe and routine) surgery that prevents it. I for one do not trust the general public with their pets. You can see that as "sad" if you like, but I see it as practical.

 

Selzer, I've seen many of your posts I thought were articulate and made a lot of sense. However, I had a lab I got that was already neutered. He was an incredible dog, big, blocky, absolutely masculine looking. In many ways will be the best dog I'll ever have had the pleasure to live with. In no way will I ever think of him as mutilated. I cannot understand your thinking as such. Do I think it's necessary for every dog? No. Do I think it is for many? Yes. Mutilated is not something that will ever come to mind, however.

 

Rocket Dog. I mutilated Cujo before giving him to my parents. I regret it completely. He has had medical problems linked to early castration. He has grown in ways that are reported to be indicative of early neuter. But I used the term specifically to illustrate what we are actually doing to our dogs for the sake of convenience, and so that we can be less responsible with them. For me, that is wrong. It is a lesson I learned the hard way.

 

Germany does not have people running out and spaying and neutering everything in sight, they do not use crates and much as we do, and they do not have as much of a problem with over-population that we do.

Human beings CAN be responsible with their animals. But it is so much easier to just cut off the offending member. I find that a bit extreme.

It is a choice as well it should be. People should not be vilified for doing it or for not doing it. Some people are just so adamant that everyone should, that they cannot just put forth their opinion and let it be. They have to try to prove that their opinion is the only one that makes sense or is ok.

 

Germany does not have people running out and spaying and neutering everything in sight, they do not use crates and much as we do, and they do not have as much of a problem with over-population that we do.

Human beings CAN be responsible with their animals. But it is so much easier to just cut off the offending member. I find that a bit extreme.

It is a choice as well it should be. People should not be vilified for doing it or for not doing it. Some people are just so adamant that everyone should, that they cannot just put forth their opinion and let it be. They have to try to prove that their opinion is the only one that makes sense or is ok.

Excellent summary.

 

It is a choice as well it should be. People should not be vilified for doing it or for not doing it. Some people are just so adamant that everyone should, that they cannot just put forth their opinion and let it be. They have to try to prove that their opinion is the only one that makes sense or is ok.

BUT....let it be known that "People should be more responsible instead of mutilating their pets." Very delicately put!!
Sometimes it may be hard for people to "put forth their opinion and let it be"
when they are accused of mutilating their pets....just a thought

 

LOL I bet
I apologize I re-read and it wasn't you, I pointed that out in my last post

 

It was me, it was me. I said it and I own it.

My point MSVETTE is that I gave my opinion and let it be, and a certain individual kept on and on and on and on about their point of view, until finally I had to get involved again, LOL. I said mutilation deliberately and for effect. I do believe it should be a choice, but I do not think anyone should be vilified for choosing to do so or not to do so. I don't think it should be an answer for irresponsibility, and a bandaid for everything from marking to humping to biting to roaming. Sorry, but people need to be more responsible. And being responsible has nothing to do whatsoever with spaying or neutering your dog.